A Bit of Disturbing News

[Zurke]

As far as 'world domination' goes if the wallet fits then wear it. We pay alot of taxes in the United States only to see it go to other 'needy' countries. My government is my spokes person as far giving money and expecting results. Those results range in aspect but the point is the same.

When we stop giving and require the rest of the world to pony up there tight fisted dollars maybe then the US will not be seen as seeking 'world domination'.

On another note I don't think anyone on this planet wants to see the US attacked again on it's soil. It will make the last 8 years seem like a minor conflict.

[RideWithTheWind]

I'm sorry if I was not clear, by hidden goal I'm not talking about world domination. But things are not as simple as US against terrorism, you have some huge nations rising right now (China, Russia, India, Brasil and others). US leaders would be stupid to forget agout geostrategics. And they are not. But people would feel uncofortable knowing that their money is invested into military bases, that's why I talked of hidden goals. The notion of world domination is outdated today IMO. Responsible leaders try their best to secure the future wellness of their nations, I do not blame them to do so. I would do the same. But they cannot tell to their people "ok we need a friendly governement here, a military base there, and so on", people don't like that (and people vote so...). So how to make people agree? 1) Fear 2) Compassion.

[IAMTHEEMPEROR]

I agree with you Sieg

Every time I hear of people praising or complaining about politicians, I see that they never take the time to actually see what's really going on. George Bush, as an example, I see hated so much that many people don't even know why they hate him anymore, they just do.

There are many factors beyond control that the president or any other politician needs to deal with. The great depression, as an example, happened while Hoover was president. It was a natural economic occurance that was bound to happen the way Americans used their money, and Hoover just happened to be there when it all went downhill. And what would people do? Blame the one in charge.
Also, what I see a lot is that leaders are often praised for improvements or hated for bad things that happen because of things set in motion that the previous presidents have set up. A president can only do so much in 4-8 years, and oftentimes these changes happen after they have left office. And when the good or bad stuff happens, it's always the next one that gets the credit or blame.
This is what happens all over the place, where people just blame the leaders for things they end up causing themselves. The US, being as big of a country it is, faces this problem all the time. Smaller countries don't face this kind of problem, political change happens fast.

Going back on the Hydrogen fuel, I think that if a new, more efficient type of fuel were to happen while Hydrogen was starting up, it would be a better time for it to happen, rather than by the time Hydrogen power fully takes hold everywhere. A different change while change is in motion is better than a change while people are used to what they have.

[Seniosh]

Another problem with blaming the leader is that half the time it's really the fault of congress!

Patriot Act? Congress formulated and passed it
War in Afghanistan and Iraq? Approved and funded by Congress
No Child Left Behind? Again, Congress
Economic Regulation? Inadequately enacted by Congress
Alternate Energy? Rests in the hands of Congress
Miles Per Gallon requirements? Congress'll never pass good ones


Too much in this country doesn't get done simply because the people in congress are too busy worrying about their own jobs, or because they've been paid too much money by any number of powerful lobbying groups. When you have the oil companies, car companies, wall street, over-emotional parents, and other groups all asking congress to enact laws X,Y, and Z, (in return for money), what is going to happen?

Bad things, bad things.

Don't look at the leaders, look at the congressional bodies, which are a hundred times more corrupt and inept.

[DarkAsmodeous]

For the reccord, the great depression is nowhere near that simple, and many very good arguements for its cause do rest on government behavior, though no one can say for sure where it stems from. Just saying that it's not so black and white.

[Seniosh]

I've read what the economists have to say about the Great Depression, and DA's right. According to people with college degrees in the subject, there are about 1000 different causes for it, many of them contradictory.

It is likely that some factors were governmental, and some were due to the unrestrained spending of the population. As always, the blame rests with multiple people. I have even seen some arguments that the policies of FDR kept us in the depression longer, but then again, there are many arguments that we couldn't have made it through without him.

Figuring out the great depression goes beyond black and white, or even grayscale. We're dealing with millions of colors here.

And of course, the same applies elsewhere. All those examples of things that congress did? Of course they were influenced by the President. And who elected the members of congress AND the president? the american people. Who lobbies congress? we do.

It's everyone

[IAMTHEEMPEROR]

The problem with the world is that no one likes to admit it when anything is their fault. It's always someone else's fault. When bad things happen, it is always the blame of the leader.